Managing Consultant in Cubiks and Director in Outstanding Achievement. Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) at The University of Manchester. Master of Science (MSc) Industrial Psychology at The University of Hull.
Rainer Kurtz Interview
by Antonio Pamos
1- At your understanding, what is the top five competencies assessed at work?
It is critical to cover the behavioural counterparts to the Big 5 personality factors (see TPF paper). In addition ‘Need for Achievement’ is important.
In my latest model presented at SIOP 2014 (see attachments) I call these competencies:
- Creating (Openness)
- Directing (extraversion)
- Striving (achievement)
- Delivering (Conscientiousness)
- Supporting (Agreeableness)
- Adapting (Emotional Stability)
All other competencies are ‘blend’ combinations of these.
2- How do you think that intelligence and behavior are related?
Reasoning processes precede and guide behaviour. I believe in a differential approach to ability assessment and suggest ‘Cognitive Agility’ as an alternative to using the term ‘Intelligence’ at the work place.
Behaviour is a function of person-environment interaction with dispositional inclinations to behave in particular ways. For problem-solving criteria relevant self-report questionnaire scales and aptitude tests show comparable validity. For overall performance the relative validity depends a lot on the diversity of the group and ‘restriction of range’.
3- On regarding gamification, do you think is really the panacea of face validity?
Not at all – I would be wary of a company that relies on ‘game-like’ assessments for filling vacancies. There are likely to be huge ‘practice’ effects and fairness issues. Without proper reliability and validity evidence they are dangerous.
Having said this – I prefer the ‘Wasabi Waiter’ to the MSCEIT!
4- How often do you think that a norm group should be reviewed?
I prefer large usage based norms that can remain in continuous use over 5-10 years. Most norm changes are fairly sample specific and inconvenience users without practical benefit. It is the responsibility of the test user to ensure that the norms are ‘sensible’ for a particular target group.
5- My company recruit graduate lawyers and auditors, do you think we must use the same criteria with both?
A common cut-off on a measure of general mental ability such as Logiks General would be fine. If different Job Family requirement profiles are created than higher weight could be placed on Verbal for the layers and Numerical for the Auditors.
The SIOP study shows that it is perfectly feasible to develop a composite predictor score for all professionals and managers. To increase face and content validity as well as potentially criterion-related validity it is useful tom refine a general predictor composite by weighting components differentially.